IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i3p1189-d730193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Colautti

    (Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy)

  • Alice Cancer

    (Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy)

  • Sara Magenes

    (Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy
    Fraternità e Amicizia Società Cooperativa Sociale ONLUS, 20146 Milan, Italy)

  • Alessandro Antonietti

    (Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy)

  • Paola Iannello

    (Department of Psychology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 20123 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

The COVID-19 vaccine appears to be a crucial requirement to fight the pandemic. However, a part of the population possesses negative attitudes towards the vaccine. The spread of conspiracy theories and contradictory information about the pandemic have altered the population’s perception of risk. The risk-perception of the vaccine’s side effects may be affected by individual differences. The complex relationship between risk-perception and individual differences is relevant when people have to make decisions based on ambiguous and constantly changing information, as in the early phases of the Italian vaccination campaign. The present study aimed at measuring the effect of individual differences in risk-perception associated with the COVID-19 vaccine’s side effects in a context characterized by information ambiguity. An online survey was conducted to classify a sample of Italian pro-vaccine people into cognitive/behavioral style groups. Furthermore, changes in vaccine risk-perception after inconsistent communications regarding the vaccine’s side effects were compared between groups. The results showed that “analytical” individuals did not change their perception regarding the probability of vaccine side effects but changed their perception regarding the severity of side effects; “open” and “polarized” individuals neither changed their perception regarding the probability nor of the severity of side effects, showing a different kind of information processing, which could interfere with an informed decision-making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1189-:d:730193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1189/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1189/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katrin Schmelz & Samuel Bowles, 2021. "Overcoming COVID-19 vaccination resistance when alternative policies affect the dynamics of conformism, social norms, and crowding out," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(25), pages 2104912118-, June.
    2. Caligiuri, Paula & Tarique, Ibraiz, 2012. "Dynamic cross-cultural competencies and global leadership effectiveness," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 612-622.
    3. Lennart Sjoberg, 1999. "Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 129-149.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Tina Iachini & Francesca Frassinetti & Francesco Ruotolo & Filomena Leonela Sbordone & Antonella Ferrara & Maria Arioli & Francesca Pazzaglia & Andrea Bosco & Michela Candini & Antonella Lopez & Aless, 2021. "Social Distance during the COVID-19 Pandemic Reflects Perceived Rather Than Actual Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, May.
    6. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    7. Shadi Shahsavari & Pavan Holur & Tianyi Wang & Timothy R. Tangherlini & Vwani Roychowdhury, 2020. "Conspiracy in the time of corona: automatic detection of emerging COVID-19 conspiracy theories in social media and the news," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 279-317, November.
    8. Lauriola, Marco & Levin, Irwin P. & Hart, Stephanie S., 2007. "Common and distinct factors in decision making under ambiguity and risk: A psychometric study of individual differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 130-149, November.
    9. Joanne M. Miller & Kyle L. Saunders & Christina E. Farhart, 2016. "Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(4), pages 824-844, October.
    10. Nicholas Francis Havey, 2020. "Partisan public health: how does political ideology influence support for COVID-19 related misinformation?," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 319-342, November.
    11. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk, Vulnerability, and Resilience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 515-522, April.
    12. Jahn Karl Hakes & W. Kip Viscusi, 2004. "Dead Reckoning: Demographic Determinants of the Accuracy of Mortality Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 651-664, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luca Simione & Monia Vagni & Tiziana Maiorano & Valeria Giostra & Daniela Pajardi, 2022. "How Implicit Attitudes toward Vaccination Affect Vaccine Hesitancy and Behaviour: Developing and Validating the V-IRAP," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emilio Ferrara & Stefano Cresci & Luca Luceri, 2020. "Misinformation, manipulation, and abuse on social media in the era of COVID-19," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 271-277, November.
    2. van Mulukom, Valerie & Pummerer, Lotte J. & Alper, Sinan & Bai, Hui & Čavojová, Vladimíra & Farias, Jessica & Kay, Cameron S. & Lazarevic, Ljiljana B. & Lobato, Emilio J.C. & Marinthe, Gaëlle & Pavela, 2022. "Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    3. Anna Ruelens, 2022. "Analyzing user-generated content using natural language processing: a case study of public satisfaction with healthcare systems," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 731-749, May.
    4. Federica Maria Magarini & Margherita Pinelli & Arianna Sinisi & Silvia Ferrari & Giovanna Laura De Fazio & Gian Maria Galeazzi, 2021. "Irrational Beliefs about COVID-19: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Magda Hassan & Jaideep Prabhu & Rajesh Chandy & Om Narasimhan, 2023. "When Bulldozers Loom: Informal Property Rights and Marketing Practice Innovation Among Emerging Market Microentrepreneurs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 137-165, January.
    6. Marieke Huysentruyt & Daniel Read, 2010. "How do people value extended warranties? Evidence from two field surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 197-218, June.
    7. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    8. L. Robin Keller & Yitong Wang, 2017. "Information Presentation in Decision and Risk Analysis: Answered, Partly Answered, and Unanswered Questions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1145, June.
    9. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    10. Christoph M. Rheinberger, 2010. "Experimental Evidence Against the Paradigm of Mortality Risk Aversion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 590-604, April.
    11. Ellen Peters & P. Sol Hart & Liana Fraenkel, 2011. "Informing Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 432-436, May.
    12. Alain Samson & Benjamin G. Voyer, 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(2), pages 48-71, December.
    13. Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "Thinking Concretely Increases the Perceived Likelihood of Risks: The Effect of Construal Level on Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 623-637, March.
    14. Justin F. Landy, 2016. "Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 496-508, September.
    15. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    16. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    17. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    18. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán Gonzalez & Ricardo Mateo, 2015. "Cognitive Reflection and the Diligent Worker: An Experimental Study of Millennials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, November.
    19. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    20. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1189-:d:730193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.